It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Entering the Dark Age of the GOP in power

page: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not really

Each side has sterotypical bases

This is pretty much an open field
Who ever takes it can be the party of science

Sci-fi geeks
Scientist


As for the use of LGBT
Make no bones about it
Go through the list of DOD personnel
Their has to be at least ONE lipstick lesbian looking officer who is competent
Make her the face of the new NASA
(the same is for all other little issues.. Add in ONE old school older NASA astronaut.. Make sure he has issues and rude statements .. We know what he said. But he is good at his job and this is about competent people.. The base will EAT it up)

Make it proof that Females can serve as Commanding officers in high danger environments
If she is a republican, then you have GOLD (if you have to get her to change parties and spot the nonsense)

Its the LBJ idea of accusing your opponent of being into beastiality
no matter how they respond you win
and its fun to watch




posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

no..

on this I must disagree

They gambled on polls

It was well the polls say

They lost because they acted like blackcatmagics former territory manager
He was always saying she needed to do this or that
in the end (after half a year) he finally drove around the neighborhood
"You have a lot of competition around her.."

This is what caused the Dems to lose
It goes back to the Rich and powerful snob effect we saw during the ACA debacle
They do not know their markets up close and personnel
and ignore the people

It cost them the election.. Last night demonstrated it



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ripcontrol

What space program?

The Democrats already scrapped much of it and relegated NASA to Muslim outreach.



democrats scrapped Nasa...proof?...and "relegated to Muslim outreach"?...have you been drinking?


If democrats scrapped the space program, it was Because the country was broke after the two terms of Bush, who, by the way, ended the space shuttle program and, although spoke in a grandiose way about the future of NASA, grossly underfunded it. There wasn't much money left for space After Iraq and defunding the government for huge corporate giveaways.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ripcontrol

And if she's competent, so what?

The problem comes when she's not the best person for the job, and they start objecting saying the objections come solely because she's a lesbian. Btw, Sally Ride was already the first lesbian astronaut. Remember the uproar from the GOP over her coming out? Neither do I.

It's shades of Obama. You only object to what he does because he's black. You racist!

How long can that go before people call shenanigans?


edit on 5-11-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ripcontrol

What space program?

The Democrats already scrapped much of it and relegated NASA to Muslim outreach.



democrats scrapped Nasa...proof?...and "relegated to Muslim outreach"?...have you been drinking?
Obama said NASA should concentrate on Muslim outreach.




It's not really surprising that President Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering." It fits with so much that we already knew about the president.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Thankfully, Obama can still veto. And I hope he does wisely.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

WOW. When a Republican President does this, it is called "not wiling to compromise". Or they are obstructionist.


When it is your side, it is a last ditch effort to "save" people.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex




The Dems had control of both the House and the Senate the first two years of this Presidency. What did that get us. Cash for Clunkers, Fast and Furious, and worst of all, the ACA, which was passed without any of those in power actually reading it. Remember this?

Actually for those without short term memory loss cash for clunkers helped to NOT! make the economy go right over a cliff, fast and furious well ain't got no argument for that,ACA needed to get done and even then it needed to be single payer,but the real scandal was the expansion of domestic spying from the Bush admin.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Actually, Cash for Clunkers was a stupid boondoggle. All it did was spend a lot of government money and remove serviceable cars from the economy that could have been sold to poorer people who needed reliable cars at an affordable price.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Did you know that the radical Hispanic group la Raza is a big lobbyist in Washington, and I looked on a webpage and found that they lobbied more heavily during the GOP leadership.... I am not exactly sure just what that means, except that when the Dems are in power they have a more direct line to the WH.....



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
Thankfully, Obama can still veto. And I hope he does wisely.


Hey, I can't wait to see how much he vetoes instead of "working side by side with all the members of Congress". Let's see how busy his pen and phone are too with EO's, cause now he's got both houses to go around.
edit on 5-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

WOW. When a Republican President does this, it is called "not wiling to compromise". Or they are obstructionist.


When it is your side, it is a last ditch effort to "save" people.



When a large group of people try to take away the rights of a smaller group of people: Examples being women and gays...
Then yes, it's an effort to save people when the President vetos the idea. Which is exactly what's going to happen. Republicans will try yet again to shut women down. Proof is all over google. Just search "Bills introduced by republicans regarding women's health." It's not a rumor that republicans hate gay people, so we can see things change there, too. At least Obama seems to care about these people. And if he vetos something in order to save a group of people, yes, I will be happy.

As President or as any politician with real power, it's your responsibility to protect your people. Regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Or even their religion. Republicans don't seem to understand that.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It wasn't really that sudden. Hillary tried to, but oh darn us GOP just weren't ready for it, and we still aren't. They also did force healthcare to become more "inelastic" to put it in economic terms. IN this manner they destroy the natural mechanism for keeping prices down by market forces by forcing people into purchasing something whether they want it or can afford it, and by allowing insurance companies to raise the price without losing customers to a more competitive company offering a better product...except that when people can no longer afford the cost, the private insurers will go down in flames giving way to single payer government subsidized insurance, which is what they really want.


An economic term used to describe the situation in which the supply and demand for a good or service are unaffected when the price of that good or service changes. Inelastic means that when the price goes up, consumers’ buying habits stay about the same, and when the price goes down, consumers’ buying habits also remain unchanged.



Economics textbooks define “inelastic” as meaning that a 1% change in the price of a good or service has less than a 1% change on the quantity demanded or supplied. For example, if the price of an essential medication changed from $200 to $202 (a 1% increase) and demand changed from 1,000 units to 995 units (a less than 1% decrease), the medication would be considered an inelastic good. If the price increase had no impact whatsoever on the quantity demanded, the medication would be considered perfectly inelastic. Economics textbooks depict the demand curve for a perfectly inelastic good as a vertical line, because the quantity demanded is the same at any price. Supply could be perfectly inelastic in the case of a unique good such as a painting. No matter how much consumers are willing to pay for it, there can never be more than one original version of that painting.


www.investopedia.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

No. What you're looking at is gridlock.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Less govt. intrusion, simply because they can't/won't cooperate long enough to do anything excessively stupid...

Yep. Gridlock for the win.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

yah because women are a small group of people in the world...



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I missed that on sally ride
do you have that story

As for the job
it is perhaps how the job is defined

You make sure she is competent

DC a long time ago stopped going with who is competent
they are all politics
Its frank underwood time if the Dems want to win

The main problem is that the cost of ruling in DC prevents either party from achieving the goal

The job

the phrase is a classic
The problem is two fold
How do you decide what is a competency
How bad are ALL the applicants faking those competencies
Even with the best screening process, some people end up being worthless at the job

then
Executive interference
Who decides what the job is

What the phrases and to be honest everything is

LEADERSHIP
I may not know what it is but I know what it is NOT
DC

Look at the explosion of the challenger
The whole thing was a fiasco
because management went with PR and not that word Competency

If you keep the snow job but secretly are old school

The secret is the difference between genius and insanity
Results
and you can skin your marks forever and they will thank you
just give them time to regrow skin



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I vote "Non-Jerkoff" ....Oh wait, every politician that has ever lived can probably fit that mold.

The issue isn't republicans or democrats, the problem is "democracy" or rather that sad resemblance of democracy. When they are spending as much money in TV ads that would pay for over 3000 kids for 4 years at Harvard you know there's a problem.

It has nothing to do with left vs right, in fact choosing the left or right should be isolated solely to jerking off, not choosing jerkoff's......know what I'm saying?



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

yah because women are a small group of people in the world...


In comparison to the many people who continuously try to take away our rights to birth control and women's health, yes, we are.
edit on 5-11-2014 by Lyxdeslic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Willtell

No. What you're looking at is gridlock.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Less govt. intrusion, simply because they can't/won't cooperate long enough to do anything excessively stupid...

Yep. Gridlock for the win.


I wish gridlock was on the ballot box.



posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I hope this thread will be a high level analysis of the race.

I won’t do any more of my usual intellectual beat-downs of the conservative snipers…I’ll have a little mercy on them from this point on in order to attract a higher level conversation of this race

The reason Obama won in the first place was because of the horrid economic condition Bush left us.

It was a perfect storm to actually elect the first back US president: the messaging was perfect since Bush left such a disaster and ALL the positive progressive indicators favored the democrats.

It may be a more mysterious reason why he won the second time, though one might conclude the Latino vote and AA vote got him over in that race. Also we were still nearer to the Bush disaster than we are now.


In this race it seems ALL the messaging and events that were occurring favored the GOP.

Such as Obama’s messy ISIS fiasco.

Almost on this issue alone, where Obama’s policy is an immoral and strategic disaster, should the GOP deserve to win IF they will help start a real war to exterminate ISIS?

Of course as usual they may go to far and mess it up( like the Iraq war in the first place) if they become too attached to Israel and the neocon devils lurking in the corner of Hell.

So on ISIS the messaging favors the GOP.

On Ebola, again, eventhough these vaunted scientist say don’t have a quarantine, it may be that the vast majority of Americans want this quarantine. Is it too much to ask someone to take out a month of there life in order to cautiously deal with this horrible disease?

So Ebola favored the GOP

On the economy what Obama doesn’t understand, eventhough the statistics seem to indicate things are better, the fact of the matter is that this is an illusion.

The good jobs just aren’t there.

And the GOP’s biggest scam is that their policies produce economic growth—a big falsehood.

But middle America( the people who usually vote in midterm elections) believe that lie.

Also Obama lied to the progressives over and over so the Democratic vote was unenthusiastic.

If Obama had been like FDR or Kennedy then he may have carried the day and been a productive president but his greatest sin is that he turned out to be one of the most ordinary presidents in history—a big phony and dud.

edit on 5-11-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join